TIFF Review: George A. Romero’s Survival of the Dead
Survival of the Dead
Written and Directed by: George A. Romero
Starring: Kenneth Welsh, Alan Van Sprang, Richard Fitzpatrick, Athena Karkanis, Devon Bostick, Philippa Domville, Kathleen Munroe
By its very nature, it seems like horror should be a young man’s game; a genre that requires the brashness of youth in order to keep things fresh and continually push the envelope. And yet, there are all kinds of aging filmmakers out there refusing to abandon their genre roots in order to pursue a more “dignified” career path. There’s something inspiring about knowing that George A. Romero is almost 70 years old, and still cranking out low budget zombie flicks like nobody’s business.
The thing is, when you’re a living legend, you’ve always gotta be looking over your shoulder, because there’s a good chance that at some point the students will surpass the master, so to speak. What’s more, if you’re constantly riding on your past successes, you run the risk of simply repeating yourself ad nauseam and becoming completely redundant. Romero’s last film, Diary of the Dead, attempted to bring the zombie movie to the digital age, and failed pretty spectacularly. Would Survival of the Dead be a return to form, or would it merely continue down the path to irrelevancy?
Survival of the Dead is a spin-off/sequel to Diary of the Dead, in that it follows a different group of characters within the same approximate timeline. Col. “Nicotine” Crocket (Alan Van Sprang), who had a brief appearance in Diary, takes center stage as he leads a group of well-armed mercenaries across the zombie-infested U.S. of A. When they discover a video on the internet tipping them off about an island off the coast of Delaware that is supposedly free from infection, they decide to make it their next destination. Along the way they meet up with Patrick O’Flynn, a former resident of Plum Island who was banished by the current inhabitants. Before they know it, they find themselves caught in the middle of a feud between two rival Irish families, fighting to survive not only against the zombies, but also each other.
Initially, Survival of the Dead shows quite a bit of promise, by mixing in a strong western element. There are some fun, campy characters, from the gruff military types to the Irish clansmen, and it feels like Romero is rediscovering the tone that made his comeback film, Land of the Dead, work. There are also some interesting new ideas, such as the moral disagreement over whether or not the zombies have a right to “live”, and whether they should simply be rounded up like cattle or outright killed. The Hatfield and McCoy-esque family feud angle also brings something fresh to the horror genre, and with enjoyable performances from Kenneth Welsh and Richard Fitzpatrick as the two family patriarchs to help support it.
It doesn’t take long for the movie to start to fall apart, however. The stiff dialogue and endless one-liners get progressively worse to the point where they become almost unbearable, and the plot never really takes shape. Important story elements are discarded on a whim with no real justification, and there is a “twin sister” twist that is surely one of the worst eye-rolling moments in recent film history.
Yes, there are some gruesome encounters with zombies along the way, but even these lack any sort of weight. All of the scuffles feel like moments conceived purely for the sake of showcasing special effects, most of which come off as cartoony rather than horrific. I mean, really… shoving a fire extinguisher in a zombie’s mouth and filling it with foam until his head explodes? Is this what Romero’s Dead series has become? There is far more reliance on digital effects here than I think most horror fans would like. The low budget aesthetic of 2009 is not nearly as eerie (nor as charming) as the low budget aesthetic of the ’70s.
In a certain sense, Romero has painted himself into a corner with Survival of the Dead. He is trying to do something different and avoid repetition, but by putting so much emphasis on the family rivalry subplot, the zombies are pushed to the background and are no longer a threat. Also, by trying to set up a mythology and a continuing storyline with his movies, he is leaving out some of the most interesting elements of a zombie film, such as the introduction of the virus and seeing how average people cope with the crisis.
While there was plenty of debate over the merit of Romero’s last two films, I think the man may have finally worn out his welcome this time around — even among the hardcore zombie fiends. The question is not whether or not Survival of the Dead is a good film (it’s not), but rather, does it at least outshine Diary of the Dead? My initial thought was yes it does, because it doesn’t take itself quite so seriously and delivers some campy fun within the framework of a western. However, upon after further reflection (and the realization that I actually gave Diary of the Dead two stars back when I first reviewed it), I think Diary of the Dead did at least work as a horror movie at points, which is precisely where Survival of the Dead falls flat.
At any rate, the bottom line here is that it’s probably time for George A. Romero to give up on zombies once and for all. He has accomplished all that he can in this particular niche, and at this point it’s clear that he is simply treading water, if not tarnishing his name. He should step aside for the new up-and-comers, and consider collaborating with other filmmakers and/or directing someone else’s script. Of all people, the godfather of zombies should know that there’s strength in numbers. — Sean
SCORE: 
Recommended If You Like: Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, John Carpenter's Vampires
